An Unconscionable Outcome:
Chomsky and the Hopelessness of Lesser Evilismby Kim Petersenwww.dissidentvoice.org
October 9-10, 2004

Massachusetts
Institute of Technology professor Noam Chomsky is a much respected figure
within the progressive world, and deservedly so. He is one of the ten most
cited figures in the humanities and The Nation magazine opined that to not
have read Chomsky is
to court genuine ignorance.
The New York Times showered heady praise on Chomsky: Arguably
the most important intellectual alive. The New Statesman labeled him:
The
conscience of the American people.
Therefore, even though marginalized by the monopoly media, when Chomsky
makes a pronouncement on issues he draws attention.

Chomsky came out in
favor of casting votes for Democratic Senator John Kerry where the race for
US president is deemed to be tight. Chomsky, although having admitted the
distinctions between Kerry and the incumbent president George Bush are
miniscule, considered that these differences could translate
into large outcomes.
One might wonder about the epistemological meaning assigned to these
hypothetical large
outcomes
that could be anticipated.

Chomsky even voiced a
stand that some might describe as anti-democratic when he warned against a
vote for a progressive alternative: No
one should delude themselves into believing that they are taking a stand on
principle if they help grant another mandate to the radical statist
reactionaries around Bush -- unless the principle they adhere to is
dismantling what remains of the progressive achievements of a century of
popular struggle at home, and consequences internationally and for the
future that we dont
have to dwell on.
Odd because Kerry was one of the characters voting for the dismantling of
hard fought-for civil rights.

All progressives agree
that Bush is anathema and most surely agree that everyone will be better off
with Bushs
ouster. But it was discomfiting to read a progressive admonishing others for
a vote straying from Chomskys
anointed choice.

In June Chomsky was
interviewed by David Barsamian. Chomsky insightfully exposed the imperialist
agenda of the US and the criminal media collaboration in hiding the truth
from Americans. When asked about the upcoming election and to expand on his
support for Kerry, Chomsky focused on the domestic agenda where he found
potential for a fairly
significant difference.

Chomsky stated that
Kerrys
people have
to appeal somehow to working people, women, minorities, and others, and that
makes a difference.
But Kerry is an avowed non-liberal and his statements do not hold out much
hope for a turn around. The atheistic Chomsky is in essence asking for a
faith-based difference that requires Kerry pulling a volte-face.

Chomsky reissued a
caution for those Americans insouciant to the notion of a second Bush term:

These may not look
like huge differences, but they translate into quite big effects for the
lives of people. Anyone who says I
dont
care if Bush gets elected
is basically telling poor and working people in the country, I
dont
care if your lives are destroyed. I dont
care whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled
mother. I just dont
care, because from my elevated point of view I dont
see much difference between them.
Thats
a way of saying, Pay
no attention to me, because I dont
care about you.
Apart from its being wrong, its
a recipe for disaster if youre
hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative.

Insofar as the
characterization extends only to the apathetic voter the criticism is fair.
However, the principled vote for, presumably, candidate Ralph Nader that
Chomsky cautioned against falls outside the scope of this criticism. A vote
for Kerry though can hardly be construed as a vote for building a
progressive movement.

Curious is that
Chomsky implicitly acknowledged the cyclicality of the electoral choice
between the lesser of two evils.

But why focus on the
domestic agenda? It is Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Haitians, Columbians,
Bolivians, Cubans, Venezuelans, and people in other countries that are under
US or US-backed military threat. Do the rights of Americans take moral
precedence over the lives of civilians in the developing world?

It seems one could
therefore state: Any supporter of Kerry who says I
dont
care if there are progressive alternatives
is basically telling poor and oppressed people in developing countries,
I
dont
care if your lives are destroyed. I dont
care whether you are going to live. I just dont
care, because from my elevated point of view I dont
see Nader having a chance.
Thats
a way of saying, Pay
no attention to me, because I dont
care about you.
Apart from its being wrong, its
a recipe for disaster if youre
hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative.

Chomsky correctly emphasizes the need for building a progressive movement.
But a progressive society is highly unlikely to arise from the farcical
so-called democratic system now in place. Solidarizing among dispossessed
workers, the disenfranchised, and marginalized peoples is the key to
forwarding the societal revolution. That is where the emphasis belongs: on
bringing about a system where lesser evilism is not a choice.

Kim Petersen
is a writer living in Nova Scotia, Canada. He can be reached at:
kimpete@start.no.